php extension naming scheme

[Weissmann Markus]

On 24.03.2007, at 23:04, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Mar 24, 2007, at 09:31, Yves de Champlain wrote:
>
>> I just made a port for the yaz php extension.  Now since there are  
>> many such extensions that are all potential ports, does anybody  
>> any naming scheme proposition ?
>>
>> How about
>>
>> www/php_yaz
>
> Hmm. Do we have any ports for php extensions yet? I don't think we  
> do. I was just recently thinking we should have a way to build  
> eaccelerator for php in MacPorts but hadn't yet thought how. And  
> someone just asked me to add support for memcache to php5.
>
> How would php_yaz know whether to build for php4 or php5? Would  
> there be variants? Or would there be two ports, php4_yaz and  
> php5_yaz? I think the latter is how the Python extensions are being  
> done but I don't exactly know why that's better than using variants.
>
> See also the recent discussion about being able to "select" which  
> version of php (python, gcc, etc.) you want to use.
>

the lesson learned from the python ports is: use a version prefix  
from the beginning. The current problems with "which version of  
Python is a py- port for?" stems from the idea, that we will always  
have a selected Python version  that is our macports-system Python.
For the PHP ports, I'd say lets do it right from the start: Do the  
naming with "php4-name" and "php5-name".
This also has the advantage that a user can test his PHP stuff with  
both versions simultaneously w/o needing to activate and reactivate a  
bunch of ports.

I exptect us to get a clean solution to not having to keep full  
copies of two ports for both php4 and php5 ports with the GSoC tasks.  
But for now, let's just duplicate them and keep our collection easy  
to understand at first glance. (unlike the current python state)


cheers,

-Markus

---
Markus W. Weissmann
http://www.mweissmann.de/